Slashdot Mirror


The Ham and Spam of Weblogs

An anonymous reader submits "Will the blogosphere become just as spammy as Usenet? There may be over 10M weblogs out there, most of them seem to be fake spam blogs created to manipulate the search engines. Scott Johnson, CTO at Feedster, complained that "at times we see upwards of 90% of the traffic from Blogspot being spam," and the problem is likely to only get worse. Can blog search engines like Technorati, Feedster, and PubSub filter the signal from the torrent of noise? Or will we have to seek new approaches such as the social filtering used by Del.icio.us or collaborative filtering used by Findory to separate the ham from the spam?"

38 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. To me (most) blogs ARE spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wish Google had an option to exclude blogs from my search. Considering many blogs use b2evolution, phpBB, or whatever, Google could easily determine what IS a blog and what IS NOT and filter it accordingly. Google IMHO would be a much better place if I could exlude blogs and those stupid parked domain search sites from my queries.

    I'm not trying to be flamebait; It would be a nice option though. ::242

    1. Re:To me (most) blogs ARE spam by aftk2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm just curious - exactly _what_ would include, if not for blogs? Certainly, I can understand not including those parked domain search sites: they're gaming the system, completely unhelpful, and filled with bogus content.

      But blogs? Sure, much of the content is poorly written, or not applicable to what most people - or, well, rather, 90% of a given population - are interested in. But in searches especially, doesn't it make sense to list results that include those normal people so interested in a particular topic that they blog about them?

      For example, blogs can be very helpful when facing computer troubles, provided you're dealing with bloggers who know how to write for Google. This is a good example. I mean, this surely has to be more worthy of inclusion in Google than the lion's share of those web-based bulletin boards that get indexed - you know the ones, with the "Next in thread" and the replies that are typically out of date, or altogether unrelated to your original query.

      Everyone's quick to dismiss things lately. Don't dismiss blogs, just because sometimes their content seems insular and not applicable to what you've searched for. That's a problem with the search engines, not the sites they index.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    2. Re:To me (most) blogs ARE spam by bigman2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The blogs don't bother me nearly as much as "those stupid parked domain search sites."

      I don't know how many times I have done a Google search, and the 3rd or 4th result comes back with my exact phrase..yay!

      Then I go to some stupid, totally lame site advertising domain names, or listing other sites, or something like that.

      I never have figured out how they get listed in Google the way they do though- because my search phrase is not listed on the page...so evidently they know something I don't.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    3. Re:To me (most) blogs ARE spam by trisweb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Separating them might be nice, true, but I thank Google for every time I've found exactly what I was looking for on a blog, especially when it was something really obscure that needed a human opinion, like a stupid setting in Windows I'm looking for, or some review of a concert that I missed. Blogs are information too; often better information than you can get anywhere else. I think what you're really angry at are "those stupid parked domain search sites", which are a little different. Just a bit.

      --
      "!"
  2. 90% rule in force. by Mal-2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    90% of EVERYTHING is crap. It just happens that weblogs trend toward a specific TYPE of crap -- SPAM. I mean you may think JeffK is crap, but some of us find him funny, so anything with actual content has to be not crap to somebody (if only the creator). That means all the crap must be content-free.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:90% rule in force. by trisweb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, great, so 90% of it is crap. It's a given, call it whatever you want. My personal favorite is the "long tail effect".

      Built into blogs is a way to tell the crap from the good stuff -- they're linked together intelligently by people who can tell crap apart, and the people who don't write crap don't link to crap. So find one good blog, and you've found a hundred or more good ones just three levels deep in links. Go one more level, and there are a thousand. It's exponential. And chances are, most of them will be of the same calibur as the root blog, with that chance decreasing slightly as you follow deeper links.

      So who cares if there's spam. It's not the same with blogs as with email -- the spam is intelligently filtered automatically, just by the normal process of each writer.

      Now, if only Google could figure out a good algorithm to track it. It wouldn't be that hard. Just rate a few blogs by hand with a content value and a link value, and automatically give all their ancestors (pages they link to) a rating of (the parent site's rating)-[(number of levels deep)*(some adjustment factor)] where the adjustment factor is somewhere around maybe .75 so that links lose value the further away from the parent they are. It could be tweaked, but I think it'd work.

      --
      "!"
  3. Human validation by SamMichaels · · Score: 4, Funny

    The guy makes a good point...human validation via captcha. If you're going to spend 10 minutes complaining, whining, bragging and/or loathing about something then you can spend 3 seconds typing in the word "uNFsaQ" to prove you're human.

    If it takes you less than 10 minutes to write in your dear diary--I mean blog--then it's probably a 1 liner to the effect of "i think she likez me omglolbbq!!!" and you need to get off my internet.

    Problem solved. Next?

    1. Re:Human validation by MochaMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you can spend 3 seconds typing in the word "uNFsaQ" to prove you're human.

      Unless you happen to be a blind blogger. With all the effort people have put into accessibility there's got to be a validation method that can work for the blind as well.

      Just mentioning this because I've seen this complaint several times by blind users on slashdot.

    2. Re:Human validation by MochaMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No I think you're right on there. From my understanding of it, most blind users are using screen readers to navigate the web, so enhancing whatever software it is that generates the images to also produce a sound file would probably suffice.

      I'm not entierly sure how many blind *and* deaf users there are browsing the web unassisted, but I suppose a broader solution would depend on what technology they're using to browse the web. Some form of braille reader, perhaps? If anyone knows the answer to this, I'd be very curious to know.

      If that were the case, I suppose a more universal, text based solution would be required -- this makes more sense to me anyway. Plus, Lynx users can be happy :)

    3. Re:Human validation by eh2o · · Score: 2, Informative

      The slashdot programming team seems to have a policy of ignoring persistent problems for years.

      However there are already some major sites with "sound" captchas for the blind -- craiigslist for example.

    4. Re:Human validation by cmdrbuzz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apricot juice sprayed out of my nose upon reading the word 'uNFsaQ'.

      You should probably get that fixed....

  4. Down with neologisms by Urusai · · Score: 3, Funny

    "blogosphere"? Considering that blogs are probably the dumbest form of communication possible (a linear log of rambling bullshit) I can only hope that the Blogosphere is destroyed by the Vogon Constructor Fleet to make way for a colonic bypass.

  5. Shouldn't be too hard to filter by XNormal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With email spam filtering you have to consider each email separately. A blog has a persistent identity and reputation. In theory, this should make it easier to filter blog spam than email spam. On results of this type of filtering is that it will will penalize new blogs in search results, both spammy and real.

    Blog comment spam will remain a problem, of course.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  6. Re:Quick Fix by seneces · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who is going to pay $1 to read about how your boyfriend dumped you last week and you're still crying in bed. Blog comment spam isn't all that hard to get rid of (filter links, filter content, or if you're just worried about search engines, use rel="nofollow").

    Anyone who has a blog that you have to pay to comment on (or to see) isn't going to get much traffic.

  7. Software is Not Social by lux55 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just wanted to point out that so-called "social software" is not social. Person-to-person communication through computers is mediated and indirect. Technology is a barrier to communication as much as it is an enabler. I agree that it is an enabler in situations where it is used to help overcome disabilities and things of that nature, however technology is used moreso by people who are actually avoiding being social. Email is often preferable to a telephone because it creates an additional barrier between ourselves and the "recipient" (aka person).

    A prime example of software in a "social" context is the chatter that accompanies networked video games. This does not form real relationships between people. I heard a teenager recently say that his gaming buddies, who he doesn't even know by name, are like family to him. Technology has helped a whole generation and then some to fail to learn what real relationships are. When a teenager can't distinguish between somebody he's only ever witnessed virtually shoot ze germans and the people who nurtured him before he was able to take care of himself, we have a problem Houston.

    And it's only getting worse. Now we've begun adding "social" in front of all kinds of new web applications. Anything that lets other users see your profile and the items you post and comment on them is seen as a valid replacement for real human contact.

    There was a line from a movie I saw recently called Crash, where Don Cheadle's character says to his girlfriend "It's the sense of touch. Any real city you walk, you know. You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that sense of touch so much, that we crash into each other just so we can feel something.". The next time we use the word "social" to describe a new type of web application, I think we should give that some thought first.

    1. Re:Software is Not Social by aftk2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You raise valid points, but what would you have to say to these people?
      The passing of a forum god.
      For the people who are mourning the loss described in the link, is their grief less meaningful than that of those who knew the person directly, face-to-face? Perhaps, but perhaps not: I know a bunch of people, some of whom I see regularly, but with whom I haven't had as meaningful a relationship as some people I've spoken to online, but have never met in person. Is there a qualitative difference between the two types of social interaction? Probably - but I think it's too easy to say "the way we always used to do things is right" and "This is new, and less personal, and hence, wrong."
      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    2. Re:Software is Not Social by lux55 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Is there a qualitative difference between the two types of social interaction?"

      While you did answer your own question ("Probably..."), I do like your response. You raise good questions. I definitely don't believe that only face-to-face communication is real social interaction, but I could have been clearer on this point. I'm not an absolutist, and I'm not pining for the dark ages or anything like that ;) If I didn't believe in communication through mediation, I wouldn't be here on /. right now.

      Anyway, my real point is that these online substitutes are serving more and more people as substitutes for the real thing, to the point where young'uns are being brought up not knowing that there is a difference. Instead of getting together (in cases that are actually able to) they go online and "chat". Mediated communication inherently encourages more mediation because we as human beings form habits. And while mediation can still produce relationships (I can't deny that), they are less rich than direct unmediated ones. And technology is inherently a mediator, no getting around it (pun slightly intended ;).

      To be perfectly honest though, most face-to-face relationships are just as mediated as those maintained through technology. Real-world mediators include our political and religious views, our egos, etc. which inhibit our ability to relate directly and honestly with one another just as much as the inability to see facial expressions on a forum.

      I definitely use technology where appropriate to augment relationships at distances. I only see my family twice a year, but I keep in touch via telephone all the time, and I post photos to flickr for them to see. My sisters email me once in a while, which is great too. These things definitely have value, but they are no substitute for being able to see and hug my family. They simply help make the time between visits bearable.

      Cheers,

      Lux

  8. Check out by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Customize Google plugin. I don't use it to block out adverts and would encourage you not to either, but it is handy for blocking out those obnoxious spammy sites that far too often show up in my google searches.

    It was a bit unintuitive how you add sites to the filter list though -- just cut and paste "http://*.whatever.com/*" into your extensions list and any search results from whatever.com will then be greyed out.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  9. Welcome to Slashdot. by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Slashdot is a blog, created in the context of a news site, which we all come to and bitch about things we want out of technology, think is/are cool, and/or hate and want everyone to know why.

    That being said, Google (along with other large search engines) have already taken stances on blogging, and are actively pursuing their individual stances. For most, this is creating their own blog service, and doing some shifting in their code to make sure blogs don't come out on top. But this isn't an absolute truth.

    If you want these things, and Google doesn't offer them, make your own search engine, and do it better. No, seriously, don't look at me like I'm crazy; there have been over a dozen "major" search engines created after Google, some are only in serious use by geeky populations (AlltheWeb, as far as I can tell, fits this), some by the trendy, some by the "I hate Google"ites, etc. etc. It's as simple as that.

    One reason I think Google's strayed from taking such a hardline on blogs is simply out of ease of use. Google doesn't want to complicate life with a million more search options, especially ones you can deal with yourself by subtracting out the majorly offensive sites (-livejournal -blogger -blogspot, etc).

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Welcome to Slashdot. by croddy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The vast majority of blog-style web sites are written and controlled by a single user. Slashdot has several editors, and all of the stories are contributed by visitor.

      Make no mistake: Slashdot is not what people are talking about when they complain of the spam that blogs have dumped into Google..

      Slashdot represents thousands of voices.

      Most blogs represent one voice only.

    2. Re:Welcome to Slashdot. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 5, Insightful

      God forbid that one voice be allowed to speak without needing to ask the consent of thousands of others.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    3. Re:Welcome to Slashdot. by ciroknight · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wait, how many Slashdot editors are there? Oh right, not thousands. Not even hundreds.

      Secondly, haven't you ever heard of the Freedom of Speech, as guarenteed to us by the Second Amendement in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America? By your comment, I'll assume not.

      Why should we quash out individuality so that one person can get to the content they want better? Why shouldn't we just solve the damned problem, instead of creating more?

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    4. Re:Welcome to Slashdot. by ciroknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Take it up with them personally, then. Oh, or you could just use a search engine that actively removes blogs from their indicies. Or you could make your own and remove them personally. Or you could subtract out the sites you don't want in existing search engines.

      As I can see it, choice is on your side. They have the choice of posting or not posting. You have the choice of how you want to deal with it.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    5. Re:Welcome to Slashdot. by AngryElmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of audience.

    6. Re:Welcome to Slashdot. by gbulmash · · Score: 3, Informative
      Secondly, haven't you ever heard of the Freedom of Speech, as guarenteed to us by the Second Amendement in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America? By your comment, I'll assume not.

      If what you say above were true, I'd be careful where you point that mouth. The safety is off.

      The Second Amendment is our right to guns, not our right to free speech. Free speech is in the First Amendment. So

      And be very careful. All the First Amendment guarantees is " Congress shall make no law..." abridging freedom of speech.

      If you want to go to a public park and preach religion or recite your political manifesto, the First Amendment guarantees your right to. But it's not absolute.

      If you want to preach/recite on my front lawn, my property rights prevail and I can physically throw you off my property if you refuse to leave voluntarily. If you want to preach/recite at midnight and you're preaching/reciting too loud, city noise ordinances prevail, and the cops can arrest or ticket you if you refuse to quiet down or move along.

      Slashdot is required to allow you a certain amount of leeway in exchange for safe harbor protections covering public forums, but that is a matter of them trying to avoid getting sued over any libelous/defamatory content in your posts, not any First Amendment guarantee they are obligated to provide you. And if you go beyond that leeway, they can ban you from posting and erase your posts.

      So if you want to argue in favor of blog spam, find another argument. The First Amendment has nothing to do with whether Google and other blog services should voluntarily clean up their act and put roadblocks/barriers in place to stem the flow of blog spam.

      - Greg

    7. Re:Welcome to Slashdot. by tootlemonde · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to preach/recite on my front lawn, my property rights prevail and I can physically throw you off my property if you refuse to leave voluntarily.

      Only the police can use physical force to remove a trespasser, as any landlord knows. According to Wikipedia:

      Most jurisdictions do not allow "self-help" to remove trespassers. The usual procedure is to ask the trespassing person to leave, then to call law enforcement officials if they do not. As long as the trespasser is not posing an immediate threat, they cannot be removed by force. It is usually illegal to arrest a trespasser and hold them on the property until law enforcement arrives as this defeats the purpose of allowing them to cure the trespass by leaving.

      Trespassing is a good deal more complicated than someone simply refusing to leave your property. For instance, on rural lands in some jurisdictions, the property has to be enclosed and and posted with a No Trespassing sign before an intruder is guilty of criminal trespass. Or, a renter's right to be on the propery he rents supercedes the right of the owner.

      In fact, if your property is a shopping mall, members of the public may have a right to be there for "non-commercial expressive activity." When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects free speech on public property but not private property, it also noted that individual state constitutions may protect freedom of speech on private mall property.

      It appears that your property rights are, in fact, weakest when dealing with someone exercising free speech. There is an implicit recognition that in some situations, free speech is a more fundamental right than property rights.

  10. Blogs and Forum Posts = Spammers by hexed_2050 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People are using blogs and forums to post links to their own sites. These links show up as backlinks to Google, and due to Google's ranking procedure that determines which website is the most relevant to each search, each extra backlink pointing to a website can effectively make that website more relevant in the searches.

    Luckily, Google is one step ahead of the spammers, and has allowed only one link from each forum to contribute as a valid backlink. Therefore, having 100 forum signatures linking to www.spamdomain.com will no longer give credit for 100 backlinks; Only one backlink will be credited towards www.spamdomain.com. The problem is, alot of people have not realised that Google has done this yet, and as a result, people are still adding 8+ forum signature links in their posts, hoping to cheat the search engine ranking system.

    --
    Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
  11. ridiculous kevetching about blogger by sdedeo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the Wired article (I know this isn't about spam, but what the hell):

    "Lately, it seems like almost every time you tune into your favorite Blogger-hosted blog to catch up on the latest gossip, meme, political diatribe or cybersnark, you find that the site is frozen in time. Or, there are multiple posts with identical content."

    Uh, no, not as far as I can tell. "Frozen in time," perhaps, after someone decided to stop blogging, but I used blogger for six months and never had a single hitch. Apparently, googling "blogger sucks" gives you thousands of sites bitching about google's service.

    Sometimes there are outages, when you can't get in to alter a post or something similar, but those were few and far between (at least they happened less than half a dozen times in six months, and it only lasted a few hours.)

    I guess this is a sign about how popular blogger is. I mean, then only way to balance my experience (zero fatal errors in six months) with thousands of complaints is to assume that there are a HELL of a lot of bloggers out there.

    Oh, and to those bitching in general about blogs: please shut up. Yes, there are annoying vanity blogs, but blogger -- and the blogging concept -- has been a godsend to specialists, as well as to political organizing.

    --
    Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
  12. Re:Personal blogs compete directly with spam blogs by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd say blogs are more than just what you've said. Hear me out.

    Blogs are a new form of communication. Before, we had "editorials" which were published in newspapers, where someone of stature is making their opinion well known, simply to spark debate and interest in the public's mind. Now this is a turn for everyone to have their own editorial, and to foster debate and discusion. Welcome to Slashdot, by the way.

    Secondly, they offer a form of sympathy to the author; normally someone either says "I like your book" or "I don't like your book". This gives people a chance to say "Well, I liked your book, but the ending could be better. I don't think Saffron shoulda died when she fell into the swimming pool" or something like that. Sometimes it's rewarding to write something, but you never know how other people relate to it, and this is just a great opportunity to get that feedback, instantly.

    Lastly, it's an insight into the person. It shows what that person values by what they write about often. It shows how educated the person is by word choice and by sentence structure. It shows how thoughtful the person is when they ask questions. It shows how we're different, as people.

    Honestly, I think the problem is that nobody thought about the problem before it existed. When we thought of the Internet, we thought of it as a number of infinitely flexible services accessible by port interfaces. When we sat down and thought of the way we wanted to put the web together, we wrote a common interfacing language, and ways of accessing that information, by a standard, over the internet. But what we didn't think of was how different the kinds of media transported over the internet would become. Had we thought of it, we might be using blog:// to access blogs today, instead of a certain http address, just as we might be using images:// or video://. Honestly, it shows how well the original system was designed, but then again it also shows how we pretty much stopped designing the system after it solved our problem (same with email, IMO).

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  13. Blogspot by dedazo · · Score: 4, Informative
    Blogspot is fucking overflowing with these fake blogs. Here's one example.

    If you have a few minutes, click on the randomizer button at the top of the screen that reads "Next Blog" a couple of times. I'd be willing to say that at least 2 out of every 10 blogs is a spam farm.

    It's just fucking sad.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    1. Re:Blogspot by sparkydevil · · Score: 2, Funny

      I did what you said and you were wrong. Six out of 10 were spam.

    2. Re:Blogspot by Absentminded-Artist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      404 Not Found. Way to go! You found one very effective way to take down spam blogs: Slashdot 'em!

      Still, I wish I could have studied that page for comparison. I found http://bobthebuilder123.blogspot.com/ one day in my blog referrer logs. I wondered why people interested in Bob the Builder had linked to me. They hadn't. The whole page is nothing but spam - all posted on one sunny day this month. If you can help me see what gonorrhea has to do with Bob the Builder I'd be very much obliged.

      At any rate, I'd pointed this site out to blogger.com but would like to know what was different with the page you linked to from "Bob's" page because it's still up. Interesting side note, though. With the changes Google made to their page ranking system recently these stupid blogs may fade away. I can't find http://bobthebuilder123.blogspot.com/ in Google. No page ranking, no purpose for existing.

      --
      The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
    3. Re:Blogspot by Relgar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if Google is letting it remain easy to make spam blogs w/ Blogger in order to get more data samples, to fine-tune their filters? i.e. replicate the internet problem in the small, with controllable parameters.

      After all, why run through the entire gamut of blog styles and presentation formats, when you can just examine content-only from your own servers.

  14. Usenet has improved substantially by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, Usenet is doing quite well. The spam battle has been won; there's very little spam in the technical groups. Serious workers in difficult fields are on there. Check out, say, "comp.games.development.programming.algorithms", where the people who write physics engines discuss how to do it. Or "comp.std.c++.moderated", where proposed changes to C++ are discussed. Usenet has far lower advertising content than the Web, where, today, "content" seems to be a little box in the middle of the page, surrounded by blinking ads.

  15. Re:2 years and no one will care by madprocess · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps.

    But being able to program, and being able to program well are two different things. And even if they become an expert programmer, doesn't mean that they will know how to use it properly.

    Someone had to design those Javascript butterflies that follow my cursor around.

    And seriously. HTML is not hard at all to learn. Or at least not so hard to learn to be able to put up a web page.

  16. Re:2 years and no one will care by Absentminded-Artist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have been coding webpages since March of 1995. I have learned HTML 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and now CSS1.0 and CSS2.0 and... As exciting as all that can be sometimes I just want to post my thoughts and be done with it. There's nothing wrong with efficiency. Blog sites can be great time savers. I used to have a web journal, wrote entries in my Palm Pilot, hotsynced the data to my Mac and ftp'd it onto my server using Applescript - all the while snorting at all the newbies using blog sites. Then I decided I valued my time better. I opened up a blog in January of this year (http://thesplinteredmind.blogspot.com/ and have had a blast. I post once a week.

    Now, my blog isn't going to be popular. I cover mostly neurological problems and how to deal with them. But I've had some fascinating discussions with complete strangers because of my blog and I'll continue blogging into the forseeable future. Because of Google many people find my blog despite it being a small fish in a big and noisy blog sea. Google is a great tool and I'm glad they index blogs. Now, I'm as upset as the next guy about spam blogs, but "crap" blogs are relative. You may read my blog and find it lame. Others, including myself, would disagree with you. But if you don't find the subjects I write about interesting or valuable, so what?

    Slashdot cracks me up sometimes. What is it to some of you guys if somebody wants to blather on and on about their breakfast or their boyfriend? If the site is a bore move on, but you could tell that from the Google search, right? Seriously, I haven't found many blogs that come up in my searches that aren't related to my searches. Not as much as parked domain sites and adsense whores at any rate.

    Not all bloggers can't be bothered to code a web page. In fact, because I do code I'm able to personalize my site. Every month I tinker and tinker with the code when I find some time. Blogging may be an exercize in vanity, but then so isn't hosting your own website. In fact, the whole web publishing scene is about personal expression, and what's wrong with that?

    --
    The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
  17. Parking Services and Search Ranking by miller60 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The domain parking revenue services often use cross-linking between the thousands of domains they control to improve their Google rankings. Speculators buy expiring domains, paying extra to get names with high Google PageRank. The aggregators like Sedo and Domain Sponsor use pretty advanced search engine optimization strategies to drive traffic to these pages .

    Like email spam, these sites will continue to exist so long as people click on the links, thus supporting the business model.

  18. city name spammers, too. by EvilStein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google for "new idria, ca"

    The first link *is* relevant, and maybe 2 more on the first Google page are as well.

    The rest? PURE CRAP. Lawyers in New Idria, CA? Job listings? Home appraisals? All just SPAM.

    (FYI, New Idria, CA is a ghost town. It has a population of 3. There are no homes being sold, and thank god, no lawyers there either.)

    So, I was looking for further history & photos and I was flooded with marketing garbage. Take a look at some of the URLs. It's clear that they're trying to boost their rank based on city names and not actually relevant content.